Question Number: 27221

Law 5 - The Referee 3/4/2013

RE: Competitive Adult

John Atkinson of London, United Kingdom asks...

This is a question about trifling.

A player is running with the ball towards goal, around the half-way line. An opposition player is chasing him, close behind. During the play you spot a couple of minor trifling infringements that don't affect the player with possession. Could be a little push, an arm on the shoulder, a very slight accidental kick...

You allow play to continue but then the player with the ball stands on and falls over the ball and loses possession - completely his fault. Should you just wave play on or are you better off blowing the whistle and pulling play back for the last infringement you saw?

I'd instinctively just play on but then you're going to get a few players moaning at you saying 'did you not see the push/holding?'.

Another example of this is where you've got defenders in their own penalty area with their arms round an opponent or underneath an opponent's arms, but not actually holding him, pulling him or otherwise impeding him. Is it wiser in this situation just to blow for the penalty? You could say that the minor infringement isn't affecting play and so shouldn't be penalised but then the opposition might not see it that way. And if you give the penalty, the defender should have no cause for complaint - if they have their arms round an opponent they're asking for trouble in my opinion!

Answer provided by Referee Gary Voshol

Either it is trifling or it is not trifling. If it was trifling it had no effect on play, and anything that happened later - such as a mistake by a teammate - didn't change the fact that it was trifling.

Your first examples - slight push, little kick - might not seem trifling to those suffering them. You have to evaluate that. They still might not be enough to stop play for, but then we're talking Advantage and not trifling. If the advantage does not materialize - say the player with the ball is closed down by 3 opponents - then you have a few moments to go back to the original non-trifling foul.

Your last example about wrapping arms around an opponent in the PA - how can that not be a foul? Unless the player is willing to just stand there in the bear hug, there will be holding or pushing. Unless the player with the ball has an immediate shot on goal, there's probably no advantage. Call the foul and PK.

Answer provided by Referee Dennis Wickham

This is a judgment call for the referee.
Did a series of little things end up affecting play, if so, the conduct taken as a whole was not trifling. Call the foul.

OTOH, there are times when the player simply makes a mistake and loses the ball. The laws were not intended to make up for the mistakes of players.

Answer provided by Referee Joe McHugh

Hi John
An interesting question and one no doubt that can have many answers / opinions based on the referee's point of view.
Trifling has little or no effect on play. Examples include slight contact that either the player does not notice or chooses to ignore and get on with play. The referee has to decide if the trifling infringement had an effect on play or was the loss of possession / fall attributable to a mistake by the player. There is also a significant difference between advantage and trifling in that with advantage the referee has seen a foul and he believes that it has effected play but has allowed play to continue to the player's advantage. If the advantage has been squandered then play is not brought back but if advantage has not materialised then the free kick is awarded.
As regards holding / raised arms that has become the bane of football in recent times. The recent Celtic v Juventus game was a clear example of this type of behaviour . The referee on the night chose not to punish it with the award of penalties and the behaviour persisted. It was unclear why the offences were not punished as they were certainly not trifling. The Italians suggested that offences were also being committed by the opponents at the same time and it was six of one and half a dozen of another.
This match was not unique in that I see many games where players adopt this tactic in the belief that the referee will not make the hard decision and award the penalty. Therein lies the problem for the game and until all referees adopt a zero tolerance on this, the behaviour will persist.

Answer provided by Referee Keith Contarino

I think you're confusing trifling with advantage. If an infraction is trifling it's not called, period. If you see a FOUL and decide not to call it because it would be more advantageous to the fouled team not to, you have given the advantage. At or near the halfway line you should give the arm signal for advantage and verbally say 'Advantage' or 'Play On' or 'Advantage, Play On'. This tells all the players that, yes, you DID see the foul but are not calling it. Then, if the advantage does not materialize within 2-3 seconds, you may bring it back to the foul and award a free kick. You never do this with a trifling infraction.

Inside the penalty area you do not give the advantage signal but always wait and see for a second or two what happens after there is a foul. The last thing a referee wants to have happen (and I suspect most of us have done this) is to blow the whistle only to see the ball hit the back of the net a second later and you have to pull the ball out and disallow the goal because you stopped play too quickly.

In your examples in your question, what you first describe are trifling infractions but a player with his arms wrapped around an opponent inside his penalty area is NOT trifling. It's holding and should be called.

The following questions were asked as a follow up to the above question...

See Question: 27227